Clarifying the Last Post: “The Wildness of Christ. The Wildness of His People.”

In my last post, The Wildness of Christ. The Wildness of His People, I made a few observations that need to be clarified and better explained. I feel a few may have taken it the wrong way or misunderstood my main point. So for the sake of those who may have misunderstood, or for those who may read it in the future, I will go into greater detail to my metaphors.

What I don’t Believe In

First and foremost, I do not believe in extreme liberalism in our walk with God. What I mean my liberalism is the teaching and attitude of some who, because they are under infinite grace, believe they can go and do whatever to whomever they want. Such as, debauchery, premarital sex, pornography, cruelty, indulging in lust, drug/alcohol abuse, etc. etc. The list could go on and on. I am not, nor will I ever be, an advocate of such behavior. They may be the normal behavior of unbelievers, but it is not acceptable behavior for God’s people.

The reason I make that point is because some hear the word wild and think I meant something else by it. Like, “Jesus was wild so He never obeyed commands from anyone.” This simply isn’t true. We see from Scripture that Jesus did obey commands (from the Father):

“I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.” (John 5:19)

“I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.” (John 6:38)

Here we see that Jesus was full of obedience to His Heavenly Father; Complete submission to His will, authority, and His work. We see here that Jesus came not to please His own will, or exert what He wanted to do on His own, but to please His Father, to exert His Father’s will.

What I do Believe In

The analogy I used with the horse and the owner was a metaphor of us humans trying to control Jesus; Us mere men trying to tame the wild stallion that is Christ. Jesus was only fully submissive to His Father. Not men, not women, not Satan. Not even the religious leaders of the time.

Jesus was only fully submissive to One, that is God the Father. His disciples tried on many accounts to control Him. Take for instance Peter, whom after learning that His Messiah would soon have to die (and of course be resurrected), attempted to persuade Jesus to change His mind,

‘From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!” Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”‘ (Matthew 16:21-23)

So Jesus wasn’t concerned with “the things of men,” but instead, “the things of God.” In our day, the things of men are many. Even in the world of Christianity there is a class of people who are after the things of men and claiming them to be the things of God. Politics is one of those. (But now I’m mingling two of the most controversial topics in the world. I.e., religion and politics. So I’ll stay away from that debate.)

So, what I meant by wild was this: Jesus Christ cannot, will not, and never will be, controlled by men. Neither by bit or bridle. The only One that Jesus Christ submits to is God the Father. They are in mutual submission to one another. Therefore, because Jesus Christ is not to be controlled by men, or better yet, religion, then neither are we. We are a people free to explore Christ in His depths, widths, and heights. We are free, because of the Blood of Christ, to have a relationship with the Father. We are to be obedient to Him, not man. (Of course there is the topic of mutual submission within the church. However, mutual is the key word. Not complete submission to one person i.e., a pastor, bishop, deacon, etc.)

I used the word in the way we use it to describe animals of the “wild”. What makes an animal wild? It is this, an animal that is considered a wild animal is one that hasn’t been controlled or manipulated by a human being. The animal survives without the aid or assistance of mankind. Most dogs are not wild. Most cats are not wild (well, excluding those scary looking cats that run around your neighborhood at night). However, lions, bears, hawks, snakes, rabbits, etc. are considered wild. They need not man to survive. Jesus Christ does not need man in order for Him to survive. He doesn’t need our evangelical programs, our worship leaders, or our “7 Highly Effective Habits”. Instead He wants mankind. He wants us to help Him, like a child helping his/her father build a swing-set. There is a big difference in want and need.

Okay, so I hope I made a few things a bit clearer here. I was not condoning to disobedience to what God has clearly outlined in Scripture on acceptable and unacceptable behavior. I was not condoning to the lack of submission to one another as fellow believers. But I do condone freedom to express Christ in one’s own personal gifts. I do condone following hard after the Lord with everything a person has even if the world thinks you are crazy (this would include religious leaders too). I do condone having the freedom to make mistakes only to get back up off the floor knowing Him better because of it.

This is what I call freedom. This is what I call wildness.

9 thoughts on “Clarifying the Last Post: “The Wildness of Christ. The Wildness of His People.”

Add yours

  1. Indeed! I think the word you’re looking for isn’t “liberalism” but “antinomianism.” I love your thoughts and writings. Keep it up!


  2. Very well said, Michael… I like how you said, ” a wild animal is one that hasn’t been controlled or manipulated by a human being…” Another term I’ve run across that sounds completely different but is saying the same thing is: ” innocence of mind “. Our minds are the main adversary to the Spirit of God… look at Peter: Get thee behind me, Satan. It was Peter’s mind that determined that what Jesus was saying wasn’t supposed to happen.. it was opposed to the Way of God… (some people lock on to that with their minds and think Jesus was talking to someone called Satan through Peter… when really it is the Hebrew word ” sātān: an adversary, fr. sātan to be adverse, to persecute ” it’s transliterated (not translated) right out of the Hebrew and for some reason some translators give the hebrew word for “adversary” a NAME and put a capital ‘S’ on it… ) anyways, didn’t mean to go off there so much.. I just wanted to point out that our minds are influenced by the traditions passed on from our fathers (as Peter says)and really, we need to be hearing the Lord and to be “open” “free” “wild” “untamed” “innocent of mind” like Adam and Eve were before the Fall.. living by the Spirit in the innocence of mind… By the way, I’ve read the word “obey” thrown around in many of the comments and want to point out that in most cases it does NOT mean “do as you are told”.. it means “to listen” or to “harken attentively”.. which, of course, is what we’re to be doing with our glorious Lord who is in you all! Now.. on to your next post!!! (man, you’ve been busy 🙂


  3. Michael,
    I’m the critic who questioned your initial use of the term “wild” to describe Jesus. I got some inspired insight this morning that leads me to recognize Jesus as a real “maverick” among human beings, which means that he did not allow any human agency, institution, political or religious party, or even race to put their “brand” on him. The “brand” or title that he seemed to prefer for himself was the “Son of Man” (John 5:27,John 3:14, and Matthew 25:31-32), who was known as a “pre-existent” and victorious divinely appointed judge (see cp. 6 of William Barclay’s Book, “Jesus as They Saw Him”). In any case, Jesus was not the type or model of a “leader” that most people would respect, and he was certainly not the type of religious leader that anyone from the religious “establishment” would endorse. He was a real “maverick”, which I think is the point that you were trying to make in your initial post.


  4. Michael,
    I need to add this additional note to my above comment: although the members of Jesus’ contemporary religious “establishment” did not endorse Jesus, Moses, the psalmists, and the prophets did predict his appearance and state the precise signs of his special identity. But his contemporaries, even his disciples, did not generally recognize these “signs” during his time among them during his earthly life. Jesus even acknowledged that Peter’s understanding that he was “the Christ” or the “Messiah” was an insight that Peter especially received from his “Father”, and then he “warned” the disciples not to broadcast this information (see Matt. 16:15-20).


    1. Bob, you weren’t the only one so no worries :). The main purpose of this blog is to edify and be edified. We can’t be built up unless people tell us what they really think. I actually look to be opposed or for people to disagree with me. It’s all part of writing and my favorite part too. “Rebuke a mocker and he will hate you. Rebuke a wise man and he will love you.” (A Proverb. I don’t remember which one and it is paraphrased lol).
      And yes, about the disciples not recognizing Him either is very true. We must recieve revealation to the identity of Christ by the Father and the Spirit. We can’t learn such things by study, they must be taught by God.
      Thanks for commenting! I appreciate your input.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a website or blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: